Singer on parental rights, cognitive disability, and Ashley X

Peter Singer on parental rights, cognitive disability, and Ashley X
Cognitive Disability: A Challenge to Moral Philosophy; Stony Brook, NYC; September 18-20, 2008

You can see commentary on, and discussion of this clip at The What Sorts blog:

http://whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/singer-on-parental-choice-d...

Transcript: Now let me say something about the views of parents on this issue. Because that, of course, is relevant. And this is something about Down Syndrome. Obviously, people with Downs are not profoundly retarded; its not the kind of category I am talking about at all. But I did want to just give you a couple of comments that Ive had when Ive spoken about this issue, in terms of the views that parents have. Parents obviously do have a say in how their children should be treated, and I think that thats tremendously important. So that in debates about, for example, infants born with Down Syndrome and other complicating conditions that required surgery, some parents have said that they didnt want surgery performed because they didnt want to have a child with Downs. Other parents have said that they did. And some have said, as Ann Bradley has said here [slide], that some people with children with Down syndrome wish that all of their children had this extraordinary syndrome, which replaces anger and malice, deletes anger and malice, replacing them with human thoughtfulness and devotion to friends and family.

So thats fine for parents who have this view and make that choice obviously. But theres also the contrary view that Ive had expressed to me in letters when Ive ... when my views have been publicized on these issues, about parents whose children have been saved by doctors when they were born, in this case, an extremely premature baby, although not actually as premature as many who are saved now, but who have had a lot of problems. And this woman wrote to me that had she known what was in store for her son, and had the doctors asked her whether they wished to incubate him, in other words, to keep him going on the ventilator so that he would survive, she would have said No. She would have would have said, that would have been a gut-wrenching decision, but it would have been for the best, both best for her son himself, and for the family and the other children. So, the views of parents on these issues go in both directions. And I dont think, therefore, resolve the question in a way, if you like, in favour of protecting life, in all cases. Rather, the arguments that I have suggested imply that parental choice ought to have an important role in decisions. At least in decisions for those with profound mental retardation, maybe in others as well.

I want to mention also the case of Ashley that received a bit of publicity last year, for those of you who heard about it. This was a case of a girl in Seattle. There was some dispute about how profoundly or severely her cognitive disabilities were. It was said that she cant walk or talk, keep her head up, roll over, or sit up by herself. She was fed with a tube, she didnt swallow and the case was controversial because her parents used growth attenuation to make her, to keep her small, and make her easier to care for, which involved operations like hysterectomy, removal of breast buds, and some hormone treatment, to so they could still pick her up and keep her with them. And they said that this was in her interest, for her benefit, so that she could travel on family holidays with them, and so on. Also, they said it would protect her from possible sexual abuse. Now, it was a controversial issue. But one of the things that I dont really agree with is the claim made in this Los Angeles Times article about it, which says that This is about Ashleys dignity. Everybody examining the case seems to agree at least about that. Well, I mean again, as I a said before the term dignity is a very vague term. I would say that its about whats in Ashleys best interests. We are prepared to use the term best interest for animals without too much hesitation. We know what that means . Were not prepared to use it for nonhuman animals . And I dont really think that someone as developmentally disabled as Ashley is described as being is actually someone with dignity in a sense were prepared to deny to nonhuman animals.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• parental rights
• Ashley X
• cognitive disability

[DoriMc]

I cannot stand this man. At the end of this segment, he refers to a young 9 yr old developmentally disabled girl as having no dignity. If you read in the dictionary what dignity is, it's not only one's concept of self, but as a noun dignity, is the word that describes that one has "worthiness". Dr. Singer, you have no dignity OR worthiness in MY book!

[cannonballsax]

I TOTALLY agree with you. This man is a blunt imbecile.

[seanpdineen]

Speaking as someone who has a different kind of cerebral palsy, and is finishing a doctorate, as well as travelling the world, I can tell you this man, is power drunk. If someone is in pain, I can;t judge them, but I don't want some thermometer wielding bitch, ending my life for the convinenece of a man like that. He wouldn;t last five mins, in my world

[MassiveJungle]

in my understanding of his position, he advocates euthanasia for severely disabled infants - those with disabilities so extreme as to render them incapable of developing beyond a vegetable-like state. He also advocates allowing doctors to administer a lethal injection to patients who, due to the seriousness of their state, would have had treatment taken away from them anyway and been allowed to die, some of whom suffer needlessly and for too long

[TBMdC]

I dont doubt that you have read Singers extensive work in biomedical ethics but evidently we did not interpret it the same way. Furthermore, obviously I think my interpretation captures Singers meaning for his work in biomedical ethics.

[TBMdC]

Singer simply argues that as severe mentally disabled people may not be self aware (which again, can be empirically determined by medical science) those who are directly impacted by the individuals life (parents) should be able to determine if that life should be preserved or euthanized.

[TBMdC]

DoriMc,

Lack of awareness is an empirical fact, does not require Singer's judgment. The only thing required for the determination of lack of awareness is empirical data.

Furthermore, Singer does not say that your grandson should be euthanized or that he does not contribute to society. If your grandson bring happiness into the lives of your children and your own life than you grandson is making a tremendous contribution.

[DoriMc]

P.S. I hope you're not planning a career in medicine.

And....I think that was the point of this Conference was it not? How can socialized medicine help those with disabilities better?

[DoriMc]

And you shouldn't assume that I haven't read anything by this man. He is the Professor of Bioethics at Princeton and has debated with an acquaintance of mine on the topic of eugenics. In essence with his system of beliefs, my grandson should have been euthanized after birth because of his diagnosis of Trisomy 13. He thinks that those with profound birth defects lack"awareness" of self and cannot contribute to society. He's dangerous IMHO as young minds in medical school are listening to him.

[MichaelDavisISTC]

This is just a random clip in the middle of a presentation. Singer is a utilitarian, meaning he regards suffering as the only thing inherently bad. I recommend that you read at least something that he's written before you dismiss him. Try the book "Rethinking Life and Death" on this issue, or his most famous essay "All Animals Are Equal," which is online.